Difference between revisions of "Blunt v. Gee"

From Wythepedia: The George Wythe Encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
m
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Blunt v. Gee''}}
 
{{DISPLAYTITLE:''Blunt v. Gee''}}
[[File:CallsReports1833V5BluntvGee.pdf|link=Media:CallsReports1833V5BluntvGee.pdf|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V5BluntvGee.pdf|'' Blunt v. Gee'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]
+
[[File:CallBluntvGee1833v5p481.jpg‎|link={{filepath:CallsReports1833V5BluntvGee.pdf}}|thumb|right|300px|First page of the opinion [[Media:CallsReports1833V5BluntvGee.pdf|'' Blunt v. Gee'']], in [https://catalog.swem.wm.edu/law/Record/2099031 ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia''], by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.]]
__NOTOC__
+
 
[[Media:CallsReports1833V5BluntvGee.pdf|''Blunt v. Gee'']], Call Vol. V 481 (1805), <ref>Daniel Call, ''[[Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia]],'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 481.</ref> discussed a widow’s distributive share in her late husband’s personal estate, when she failed to renounce his will within a year.
+
[[Media:CallsReports1833V5BluntvGee.pdf|''Blunt v. Gee'']], 9 Va. (5 Call) 481 (1805), <ref>Daniel Call, ''Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia,'' (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:481.</ref> discussed a widow’s distributive share in her late husband’s personal estate, when she failed to renounce his will within a year.
  
 
==Background==
 
==Background==
Mary Gee and her step children sued the estates of Mrs. Gee’s deceased husband and daughter for their share of estate. However, Mrs. Gee renounced the will of her deceased husband after a year. The estate of her husband uses this claim to prevent Mrs. Gee from obtaining her life estate and share in the property but rather enforcing the will her former husband left. In addition, the administrators argue that because Mrs. Gee’s daughter was underage, that her share of the estate should be divided in line with the law rather than a will.
+
Mary Gee and her children from a second marriage, sued the executors of her late husband, Cordall Norfleet, and late daughter, Sarah Jones, in the High Court of Chancery. The complainant requested the Court grant Mary and her children their share of her first husband's estate. In his will, Cordall left tracts of land in North Carolina and Virginia to his son, John Norfleet with the provision that Mary would have the the estate until John became of age. After a year, Mary renounced Cordall's will. On July 24, 1798, John died intestate and without issue. On September 21, 1798, Sarah devised all her interest in John's land to Mary and her interest in slaves her step-sister. Soon after, Sarah also died.
  
 
===The Court's Decision===
 
===The Court's Decision===
Chancellor Wythe gave the plaintiff, Mary Gee, both her life estate and distributive share in real and personal property, despite the late renunciation of her first husband’s will. In his opinion Wythe reasoned "that the appellee, Mary Gee, by failure to renounce the benefit (if it were a benefit) bestowed upon her, by her former husband in his testament, was not barred of her dower in his lands, nor her share of his goods." The Court of Appeals reversed.  
+
Chancellor Wythe gave the plaintiff, Mary Gee, both her life estate and distributive share in real and personal property, despite the late renunciation of her first husband’s will. In his opinion Wythe reasoned "that the appellee, Mary Gee, by failure to renounce the benefit (if it were a benefit) bestowed upon her, by her former husband in his testament, was not barred of her dower in his lands, nor her share of his goods." The Court of Appeals reversed.
  
 
==See also==
 
==See also==
Line 16: Line 16:
 
<references/>
 
<references/>
  
 
+
__NOTOC__
 
 
 
[[Category: Cases]]
 
[[Category: Cases]]
 +
[[Category: Inheritance]]
 +
[[Category: Slavery]]

Revision as of 14:22, 30 July 2018

First page of the opinion Blunt v. Gee, in Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, by Daniel Call. Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833.

Blunt v. Gee, 9 Va. (5 Call) 481 (1805), [1] discussed a widow’s distributive share in her late husband’s personal estate, when she failed to renounce his will within a year.

Background

Mary Gee and her children from a second marriage, sued the executors of her late husband, Cordall Norfleet, and late daughter, Sarah Jones, in the High Court of Chancery. The complainant requested the Court grant Mary and her children their share of her first husband's estate. In his will, Cordall left tracts of land in North Carolina and Virginia to his son, John Norfleet with the provision that Mary would have the the estate until John became of age. After a year, Mary renounced Cordall's will. On July 24, 1798, John died intestate and without issue. On September 21, 1798, Sarah devised all her interest in John's land to Mary and her interest in slaves her step-sister. Soon after, Sarah also died.

The Court's Decision

Chancellor Wythe gave the plaintiff, Mary Gee, both her life estate and distributive share in real and personal property, despite the late renunciation of her first husband’s will. In his opinion Wythe reasoned "that the appellee, Mary Gee, by failure to renounce the benefit (if it were a benefit) bestowed upon her, by her former husband in his testament, was not barred of her dower in his lands, nor her share of his goods." The Court of Appeals reversed.

See also

References

  1. Daniel Call, Reports of Cases Argued and Decided in the Court of Appeals of Virginia, (Richmond: R. I. Smith, 1833), 5:481.